Australia isn’t immune to populism.
Narcissistic sociopaths may present differently in Australia than they do in the US but that doesn’t mean they’re not a thing.
That attitude is what got him Elected in the US.
Never underestimate a conman that plays on Xenophobia to get what they want.
Our ranked choice voting may be leagues ahead of first past the post but it is still a possibility we should look out for.
We elect “Donald Trumps” all the time.
Clive Palmer.
Craig Kelly.
Barnaby Joyce.
Bob Katter.
Pauline Hanson.
Jacqui Lambie.They only differ from Trump in degree, not in tactics.
This “article” is a thought bubble, not even a fully fleshed out one.It isn’t the crimes that Trump is accused of committing that are evil, it’s the lieing, manipulating, etc that got him in position to do it.
The shit that Palmer did to get elected were basically strong arming an entire electorate to support him.
The shit that Hanson has done through funneling electoral funds through friendly advertising companies SHOULD be considered fraud.Bob Katter and Jacqui Lambie don’t belong anywhere near this list. Neither of them are remotely Trumpian. You and I might disagree with their philosophies, but there’s no denying that they are completely genuine and they fight for what they believe their constituents really want.
I’d argue Pauline Hanson kinda fits that description too, although it’s certainly far less clear with her. But what’s definitely true of Hanson and those other two is that they are focused on the issues, not on themselves. When you think of Pauline Hanson, the first thing you think is “racist”, it’s not “self-obsessed” or some other word like that, which would be the first thing about Trump.
Craig Kelly and Barnaby Joyce I don’t know quite as much about, but the general sense I get of them is more along the same lines. Bad political positions, bad people in their personal lives, but not focused on bigging themselves up like Trump is.
Which leaves Palmer. Who definitely does fit that. But who, it’s very notable, did not have a lot of electoral success. He got himself elected once, in one seat. His party has a single seat in the Senate, which no longer really even derives itself from Palmer who hasn’t been strongly publicly involved in the party since long before that Senator won his election latest election. Palmer doesn’t have the capacity to become a Trump because he doesn’t have the capacity to win the widespread national success that would be necessary for that.
Oh, Hanson is absolutely self-obsessed. So much so that she had herself put in her party’ constitution as party leader for life with the right to determine her successor.
I wouldn’t class Katter or Lambie as Trumpian, but specifically Katter is very self-obsessed. In general though he is, despite his deeply irritating shtick*, fairly harmless and benign.
Palmer may not have had straight-up electoral success - but he has successfully manipulated public opinion and influenced election outcomes by injecting himself along with huge amounts of money into the campaign cycle and blasting his positions out there. We can largely thank him for the Coalition winning the 2019 election which they themselves absolutely expected to lose. The thing about Palmer is figuring out what his goals are, and aside from making money, those goals thus far have been focused around either preventing a Labor government, or preventing parts of Labor’s agenda. However, if those goals ever change towards getting more political power, then Palmer will be able to spend a lot of money to achieve his goals.
One could argue that key reasons for Australian electoral outcomes being fairly benign are the preferential voting system (as opposed to first past the post in the US) and compulsory elections - high voter turnout is generally recognised to prevent swings towards the extreme. In the US, 60% voter turnout is considered high, whereas here the turnout is generally north of 90%.
*By shtick, I mean his general ‘oh, don’t mind me, I’m just a funny old dodderer’ demeanour, from which he can pivot in half a second flat to become really toxic and aggressive
from which he can pivot in half a second flat to become really toxic and aggressive
Especially towards crocodiles!
I don’t agree with that analysis of Hanson. Her political career has always been very focused on her as the sole figurehead. She does not have a good track record of sharing power with others and members of her party are heavily reliant on her endorsement for any kind of success. They can’t run on her issues alone because specific issues aren’t actually what get people to vote for her. They vote for Hanson because she is seen as a reliable culture warrior outside of the usual ruling political class. Her approach to politics actually has many similarities to Trump’s.
Thank you for the common sense response. Even Barry from insiders has said that Bob katter is probably the most representative politician in the country. He truly is there representing his electorate. Love it or loath it, it’s true.
I agree, which speaks volumes as to why we’re in this fuckig mess. He’s representative of the deplorables.
Jacqui Lambie and Glenn Lazarus were ex Palmer United Party and both were sincere.
Oh, I thought we were talking about “bad people who shouldn’t be anywhere near political levers”, not “egotisitical idiots”.
Did you read the article? I thought it was pretty clear that it was focused on Trump’s egotism, and Australia’s dislike for that style of interaction.
Sure I read it, but Simon’s premise is incorrect.
Even his tangential commentary is incorrect.
Neither Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott were booted for making “captains calls”, they were booted as fall guys by their parties before going to election.Neither Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott were booted for making “captains calls”, they were booted as fall guys by their parties before going to election.
That’s true. The centralisation of decision making annoyed other members and was part of the reason they lost faith in the leadership, but the biggest reason of all was the poor polling. The ABC documentaries made that quite clear.
I’m surprised noone has mentioned Fraser Anning - he was going to mask off neo-Nazi rallies and when the Christchurch massacre happened he basically came out in Parliament and said “they deserve it”.
When he was censured, he doubled down in his last speech.
Or the guy who outright says he’s a “science skeptic”.
We’re very literally banana republic and it shows often.
No. That’s incorrect. It’s because we have compulsory voting. It stops extremists on either side getting too much power.
It keeps our politics centre.
And our voting is preferential
This is the true answer
Also how we randomly end up with car and gun enthusiasts in parliament some times
Still better than the alternative - at least if we had the Republicans and Democrats here, a vote for an alternative candidate doesn’t automatically hurt the “lesser of two evils” candidate that you would support if you had to pick one or the other. That being said the fact that the Head of State (Governor-General) doesn’t have any real power (apart from dissolving parliament) and that the leader of our government is elected by the parliament from the parliament makes it so bad leaders (and good ones unfortunately) can be removed very easily.
I’d love to see a measure that bars the party of government from having a leadership spill for at least two and a half years after winning an election, or maybe at least a 2/3rds caucus majority to change leader during that time.
Edit: No retirement loophole they can exploit or something either. They should be held to service like a member of the military is, if they’re going to send our young people off to die. Retire in the six months before an election if you don’t want to re-up. Otherwise buck up and do the bloody job. If we did that for the whole parliament it might scare away the Clive Palmer types from even running.
Only the Senate is preferential. The lower house uses Instant-runoff Voting.
Instant runoff voting is preferential. Preferential is a property that a voting system can have, where you number candidates in order of preference.
Instant runoff is one specific algorithm that can be used which is preferential. Single transferable vote, used in the Senate, is another preferential system. It’s also sort of a general case of IRV, allowing for more than one winner per race. (Or it might be more accurate to say that IRV is a special case of STV where N=1.)
Another preferential system is Minimax. Minimax basically simulates every possible head-to-head race between two of the candidates and declares the overall winner to be the one who performed best* across all of those races. I don’t actually think it’s used anywhere in the real world.
But incidentally, if you do hear the term “preferential voting” used, they’re probably talking about IRV. It’s the most common and the simplest preferential system.
* is does this by asking “which candidate performed the best in their worst match-up?”
It is not preferential. At the and of the day just one member is elected, sometimes with only 50.1% approval from the voters. The preferences of the other 49.9% are ignored. The Senate is preferential because a cohort of voters is electing multiple members. The votes are tallied and handed out by preferences. Say there are five seats. Labor gets 60% and Liberals get 40%, so it’s 3 seats for Labor and 2 for the Liberals. Everyone’s preferences were considered.
The non-electorate seats in NZ work the same way, using a national tally to hand out those seats by preference.
Instant-runoff is just a way of having a bunch of first past the post elections in one go. “If this candidate was eliminated, who would you vote for? Okay, but if that candidate was eliminated, who would you vote for?”. That’s how non-instant runoff elections work too. Until eventually you’re left with two people standing and one has more overall support.
Edit: As well if someone gets more than 50% first preferences they just win outright. Just because we use the word preference to describe that doesn’t make it preferential voting. It needs to represent the vote of all people.
Are you considering preferential with proportional? Preferential means you order your preferences. No more, no less. A proportional system (of which STV is a quasi-member, being somewhat proportional, but not quite as purely proportional as most other proportional systems) is one where people’s overall wishes are better taken into account, and the resulting parliament is a better representation of the will of voters.
Instant-runoff is just a way of having a bunch of first past the post elections in one go
Eh, sort of. It’s a way of doing a runoff voting system all in one go. It’s like the system parliamentary parties use to choose their leader, where they do one vote, eliminate the last place candidate, and then do another vote, and repeat. It’s not really FPTP because the highest-scoring candidate in each round isn’t what’s relevant, the lowest-scoring is.
But I think we both understand how the elections work from a mechanical standpoint. You’re just not clear on the correct terminology to refer to them.
The political party that advocates for the removal of compulsory voting is fascist.
Prove me wrong.
this is especially rich coming from a Queensland paper… how soon we forget…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen
Here are some snippets to save you reading the whole thing…
“Within months of becoming premier, Bjelke-Petersen encountered his first controversy over allegations of conflict of interest”
"three weeks after becoming premier, Bjelke-Petersen’s government gave two companies, Exoil NL and Transoil NL—in both of which he was a major shareholder—six-year leases to prospect for oil on the Great Barrier Reef "
“Plans by Country Party members to support a Labor Party vote of no confidence in parliament were quashed after the intervention of party president Robert Sparkes, who warned that anyone who voted against Bjelke-Petersen would lose their status as the party’s candidate at the next election.”
“Bjelke-Petersen seized on the controversial visit of the Springboks, the South African rugby union team, in 1971 to consolidate his position as leader with a display of force.”
“A crowd of demonstrators also mounted a peaceful protest outside the Springboks’ Wickham Terrace motel and were chased on foot by police moments after being ordered to retreat, with many police attacking the crowd with batons, boots and fists. It was one of a series of violent attacks by police on demonstrators during the Springboks’ visit to Queensland”
“Bjelke-Petersen praised police for their ‘restraint’ during the demonstrations and rewarded the police union for its support with an extra week’s leave for every officer in the state. He described the tension over the Springboks’ tour as ‘great fun’, ‘a game of chess in the political arena’. The crisis, he said, ‘put me on the map’.”
“Bjelke-Petersen began regular media and parliamentary attacks on the Whitlam Labor government, vowing to have it defeated, and he and Whitlam exchanged frequent verbal barbs, culminating in the prime minister’s 1975 description of the Queensland premier as ‘a Bible-bashing bastard … a paranoic, a bigot and fanatical’”
“Bjelke-Petersen also vehemently opposed the Whitlam government’s proposal for Medicare, a publicly funded universal health care system.”
“In 1975, Bjelke-Petersen played what turned out to be a key role in the political crisis that brought down the Whitlam government. Bjelke-Petersen alleged that Queensland police investigations had uncovered damaging documentation in relation to the Loans Affair. This documentation was never made public and these allegations remained unsubstantiated”
“television cameras captured an incident during the confrontation in which a police inspector struck a 20-year-old female protester over the head with his baton, injuring her. When Police Commissioner Ray Whitrod announced he would hold an inquiry, a move supported by Police Minister Max Hodges, Bjelke-Petersen declared there would be no inquiry. He told reporters he was tired of radical groups believing they could take over the streets.”
“In 1977, Bjelke-Petersen announced that ‘the day of street marches is over’, warning protesters, ‘Don’t bother applying for a march permit. You won’t get one. That’s government policy now!’”
“When, after two ugly street battles between police and right-to-march protesters, the Uniting Church Synod called on the government to change the march law, Bjelke-Petersen accused the clergy of ‘supporting communists’”
"The government’s increasingly hardline approach to civil liberties prompted Queensland National Party president Robert Sparkes to warn the party that it was developing a dangerous ‘propaganda-created, ultra-conservative, almost fascist image.’ "
“Florence Bjelke-Petersen (his wife) was elected to the Senate in October 1980 as a National Party member and six weeks later Joh was successful for a fifth time as premier at the 1980 Queensland election, with the Nationals converting a 27.9 percent primary vote—their highest ever—into 35 of the parliament’s 82 seats, or 43 percent of seats.”
“In 1984 Bjelke-Petersen was created a Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George (KCMG) for ‘services to parliamentary democracy’. Author Evan Whitton suggests the premier had made the nomination himself.”
“A ‘Joh for PM’ campaign was conceived in late 1985, driven largely by a group of Gold Coast property developers, promoting Bjelke-Petersen as the most effective conservative challenger to Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, and at the 1986 Queensland election he recorded his biggest electoral win ever, winning 49 of the state’s 89 seats with 39.6 percent of the primary vote.”
Australia was a very different place in 1968.
To start with, I linked BT because that’s where I found this, but the reporting was done originally on SMH (with which BT shares all its content) by a Melbournian author.
Bjelke-Petersen isn’t really the same thing. The dude was a dictator, for sure, but he stayed in power through dictatorial means like using the police against opponents and taking advantage of gerrymandering. Which is what most of your quotes demonstrate.
He didn’t do it through the standout self-aggrandising that defines Trump.
Be careful to merely associate self-aggrandising with Trumpism - there is a lot more to it. I’d argue that in his first term, he largely checked his boundaries and tried to see what he could get away with. But he wants to be a dictator, an autocrat, and now that he has the majority of SCOTUS on his side, and more and more of the red states slipping into outright Republican autocracy, he has a lot more wind in his back. A second Trump term will be disastrous, and that’s not because of his self-aggrandising.
We need a TL;DR of your TL;DR.
“Never” is a strong word. Culture can and does change.
Yeah, we used to say “it can’t happen here” over here, too.
Yup. That’s the worst mindset to have.
That’s cool, I heard Brexit would never pass too.
Honest Government Ads on Youtube gives a very different view of your politicians …
Our politicians are bad, but that’s because they believe in awful political positions and/or kowtow to their donors’ interests. There’s a cap on how bad they can get though because the sort of Trumpian reverence doesn’t work here. Our closest equivalent is probably Clive Palmer, who got elected as an MP for like one term in one semi-rural electorate.
I disagree. We’ve already elected our Donald Trump, and we did so before Donald Trump even became US President. Ours was called Tony Abbott. Good riddance.
Abbott was nothing like Trump. If anything, our closest Prime Minister in recent times was Scotty from Marketing, who I would still say is a pretty far cry.
Scotty was absolutely Trump like. I’ll go with at least Abbot held a hose, but neoliberal scum hangs on both.
Abbott, love him or loathe him (likely the latter), has a deep respect for the institutions of this country and is fiercely loyal to his friends.
Abbott is an absolute bonehead but he serves with a higher calling than his own self enrichment.
Ok can yall take care of rupert murdoch please then thanks.
Eh? Why would Australia have to “take care of” an American media mogul?
Hes Australian. I blame Australia for his creation, and subsequently Fox News.
Hes Australian
Bruh. He’s literally one of the least Australian people in the world.
He was born Australian, and actively chose to give that up. He’s negative Australian. Less an Australian than you are as some random person who just happens to have never been Aussie.
I’ll give you like, 400 bucks (or dolleridoos? idk what you call them) to take him back.
Nah, the fee for that’s gonna be way higher.
(But yes, bucks is fine.)
Trust me - we hate him more than you do. Which is probably half the reason he migrated to America about 50 years ago and almost immediately renounced his Australian citizenship. He’s all yours.
When you think the Brisbane Times couldn’t be more of a rag - not that I would expect political literacy from an outfit that struggles even with journalism but bloody hell.
Fraser Annings office was literally in our CBD - like come off it.
BT has actually gotten really good over the last year or so. Personally I think this article is a good one, but even if you don’t, it was published by SMH, not BT. I just accessed it through the BT website since they share articles.
Careful you don’t break your arm jerkin yaself off
I often see people talk about “tall-poppy syndrome” as an innately negative thing. Personally, I see the phrase itself as entirely neutral, and I view the cultural trait it represents as a mostly good thing. The article claims “ambitious actors have to go to Hollywood to become rich and famous”, but I don’t think that’s because of Australian culture. It’s because of the size of the American economy and the scale of Hollywood.
Look at the most famous Australian actors, even the ones in America, and they’re a far cry from the egotist that is the stereotype of an American actor—though America also has its fair share of “down to earth” celebrities too. I don’t think our culture stops us from succeeding at all, it just stops us being arses about it, or succeeding in as many predatory ways.
view the cultural trait it represents as a mostly good thing
I disagree. We should hate people for what they do, not because they happen to be tall. The world is full of nice people who happen to be tall.
Uh, you know the phrase “tall poppy syndrome” has literally nothing to do with people’s heights, right?
I’m assuming they were referring to successful people, as per the phrase. Not literal tall people.
Comkekety disagree, we’re as stupid Look to the UK, a billionare shit stain as PM.
